Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Founded by Plank, Frans

Editor-in-Chief: Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.500
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.675

CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.336
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.517

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 20, Issue 3

Issues

Typology and coevolutionary linguistics

Nicholas Evans
  • ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language (CoEDL), Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-12-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0023

References

  • Bornstein, Marc H. 1973. Color vision and color naming: A psychophysiological hypothesis of cultural difference. Psychological Bulletin 80. 257–285.Google Scholar

  • Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater. 2016. Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition and processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dediu, Dan & D. Robert Ladd. 2007. Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104. 10944–10949.Google Scholar

  • de Vos, Connie. 2012. Kata Kolok: An updated sociolinguistic profile. In Zeshan & de Vos (eds.) 2012, 381–386.Google Scholar

  • Dediu, Dan. 2011. Are languages really independent from genes? If not, what would a genetic bias affecting language diversity look like? Human Biology 83. 279–296.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dor, Daniel. 2015. The instruction of the imagination: Language as a social communication technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 55. 59–138.Google Scholar

  • Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley & Stephen C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309. 2072–2075.

  • Dunn, Michael, Stephen C. Levinson, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language 84. 710–759.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, N. J. (ed.). 2002. Ethnosyntax: Explorations in culture and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Context, culture and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 32. 1340.

  • Evans, Nicholas (forthcoming). Linguistic divergence under contact. In Michela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio (eds.), Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009a. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 32. 429–448.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009b. With diversity in mind: Freeing the language sciences from Universal Grammar. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 32. 472–492.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas & Hans-Jürgen Sasse. 2004. Searching for meaning in the Library of Babel: Field semantics and problems of digital archiving. In Linda Barwick, Allan Marett, Jane Simpson & Amanda Harris (eds.), Researchers, communities, institutions, sound recordings. Sydney: University of Sydney. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1509Google Scholar

  • Everett, Caleb. 2013. Evidence for direct geographic influences on linguistic sounds: The case of ejectives. PLoS ONE 8. e65265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065275CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1954. De l’origine des tons en vietnamien. Journal Asiatique 242. 69–82.Google Scholar

  • Iggesen, Oliver. 2005. Number of cases. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005, 202–205.Google Scholar

  • Jenks, Peter. 2010. Incipient tone in Moken. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~jenks/Research_files/Tonogenesis.pdf

  • Kendon, Adam. 1988. Sign languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, semiotic and communicative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kirby, Simon, Mike Dowman & Thomas L. Griffiths. 2007. Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104. 5241–5245.Google Scholar

  • Kortmann, Bernd (ed.). 2004. Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ladd, D. Robert, Sean G. Roberts & Dan Dediu. 2015. Correlational studies in typological historical linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 221–241.Google Scholar

  • Laeng, Bruno, Tim Brennen, Åke Elden, Helle Gaare Paulsen, Aniruddha Banerjee & Robert Lipton. 2007. Latitude-of-birth and season-of-birth effects on human color vision in the Arctic. Vision Research 47. 1595–1607.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. & Nicholas Evans. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics. Response to comments on ‘The myth of language universals’. Lingua 120. 2733–2758.Google Scholar

  • Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5. e8559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559Google Scholar

  • Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Tone. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Chapter 13. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie. http://wals.info/chapter/13

  • Mansfield, John. 2016. Morphotactic variation in Murrinhpatha. Paper read at the conference “New ways of analyzing variation Asia-Pacific 4” (NWAV-AP 4), Chiayi, Taiwan, April 2016.

  • Meyerhoff, Miriam, Chie Adachi, Golnaz Nanbakhsh & Anna Strycharz. 2012. Sociolinguistic fieldwork. In Nick Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, 121–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Michener, Charles D., John O. Corliss, Richard S. Cowan, Peter H. Raven, Curtis W. Sabrosky, Donald S. Squires & G. W. Wharton. 1970. Systematics in support of biological research. Washington, DC: Division of Biology and Agriculture, National Research Council.Google Scholar

  • Miles, Mike. 2000. Signing in the Seraglio: Mutes, dwarfs and gestures at the Ottoman Court 1500–1700. Disability & Society 15. 115–134.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Niklas, Karl J. 1994. Morphological evolution through complex domains of fitness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91. 6772–6779.Google Scholar

  • Niklas, Karl J. 2004. Computer models of early land plant evolution. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 32. 47–66.Google Scholar

  • Panda, Sibaji. 2012. Alipur Sign Language: A sociolinguistic and cultural profile. In Zeshan & de Vos (eds.) 2012, 353–360.Google Scholar

  • Reesink, Ger & Michael Dunn. 2012. Systematic typological comparison as a tool for investigating language history. In Nicholas Evans & Marian Klamer (eds.), Melanesian languages on the edge of Asia: Challenges for the 21st century (Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publications 5), 34–71. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar

  • Reesink, Ger, Ruth Singer & Michael Dunn. 2009. Explaining the linguistic diversity of Sahul using population methods. PLoS Biology 7. e1000241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000241CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reid, Nicholas. 2003. Phrasal verb to synthetic verb: Recorded morphosyntactic change in Ngan’gityemerri. In Nicholas Evans (ed.), The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region (Pacific Linguistics 552), 95–123. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Reznick, David N. & Robert E. Ricklefs. 2009. Darwin’s bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature 457. 837–842.Google Scholar

  • Schiffman, Harold. 2004. The Tamil case system. In Jean-Luc Chevillard & Eva Wilden (eds.), South-Indian horizons: Felicitation volume for François Gros on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Publications du Département d’Indologie 94), 293–305. Pondicherry, India: Institut Français de Pondichéry and École Française d’Extrême-Orient.Google Scholar

  • Stanford, James N. 2009. Clan as a sociolinguistic variable: Three approaches to Sui clans. In Stanford & Preston (eds.) 2009, 463–484.Google Scholar

  • Stanford, James N. & Dennis R. Preston (eds.). 2009. Variation in indigenous minority languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Thurgood, Graham. 1996. From ancient Cham to modern dialects: Two thousand years of language contact and change. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

  • Thurston, William R. 1992. Sociolinguistic typology and other factors effecting change in north-western New Britain, Papua New Guinea. In Tom Dutton (ed.), Culture change, language change: Case studies from Melanesia (Pacific Linguistics C-120), 123–139. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Whorf, Benjamin L. 1941. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Leslie Spier, A. Irving Hallowell & Stanley S. Newman (eds.), Language, culture, and personality: Essays in memory of Edward Sapir, 75–93. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund. Reprinted in Benjamin L. Whorf, Language, thought and reality: Selected writings by Benjamin Lee Whorf (edited by John Carroll), 134–159. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1956.Google Scholar

  • Zeshan, Ulrike & Sibaji Panda. 2011. Reciprocal constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. In Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen C. Levinson & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology, 91–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Zeshan, Ulrike & Connie de Vos (eds.). 2012. Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; Nijmegen: Ishara.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-09-25

Published Online: 2016-12-23

Published in Print: 2016-12-01


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 505–520, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0023.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Caleb Everett
Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, Volume 8

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in